No baggage: Sometimes it seems like we need 'simple' candidates

It has started already -- and we are not even in the actual throes of the presidential campaign.

Once again we have at least one candidate who already has to explain something.

This time, it is Hillary Clinton and her association with the Clinton Foundation.

Critics claim that while she was Secretary of State, her family's charity, the Clinton Foundation, received huge donations from international interests and that former President Bill Clinton earned exorbitant speaking fees.

She -- and he -- say one thing had nothing to do with the other and that Mrs. Clinton offered no quid pro quo for the money that was collected and that the speaking fees had nothing to do with her.

Mrs. Clinton's supporters say there is no proof of any influence and that the observations are simply politically motivated -- and nothing else.

They say she followed the letter of the law.

And herein lies the problem with electing people who have been around Washington too long -- they just don't get it.

There might be nothing inappropriate or at least illegal about how Mrs. Clinton conducted her business.

She might indeed have been well within the letter of the law.

But those who are critiquing her actions say that the questions -- combined with those surrounding her decision to destroy a server that contained emails she was not supposed to have on a private server -- suggest a pattern.

In other words, it smells.

So here is the question -- and it is one that we need to ask ourselves a lot this campaign season -- do we want anyone in office who has to explain away his or her actions with "I followed the letter of the law"?

We all know what that really means.

Mrs. Clinton is the current example, but there will be others. It is the consequence of electing people who have already made a pretty good living off becoming Washington glitterati.

Well-connected politicians know how to work the system, and it makes you wonder sometimes -- especially when their positions on issues change like the wind -- if you can really believe anything they say.

It is one of the main reasons so many people want to see more term limits and fewer career politicians.

The Clinton questions are not over, and they shouldn't be. This is a concern that should give even the most devoted of Democrats pause.

And don't get too comfy there, Republicans, there just might be some questions for one of your candidates, too.

The bottom line is that perhaps we need to look for a new kind of candidate -- someone who does not have to explain anything, who doesn't have something in his or her past that makes us uncomfortable, who has not already benefited from his or her "influence."

In other words, someone who has not already been Washington-ified.

Fortunately, we have all campaign season to look for one -- and that really should be our top priority.

We will see if there is one out there.

Published in Editorials on May 9, 2015 11:58 PM